WP.16352..2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 16352 OF 2024

1. Nashik Jillha Vidhayak Karya

Samiti Satana

2. Madhyamik Ashram Shala, Moholangi ….Petitioners

Versus

1. Lahanu Deochand Sonawane

2. The Project Officer, Integrated Tribal

Development Project

3. The Additional Commissioner, Tribal

Development Department

4. Machindranath Vishnu Ahire ….Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 8740 OF 2024

Machindranath Vishnu Ahire ….Petitioner

Versus

1. Lahanu Deochand Sonawane

2. Yashwant Panditrao Patil

3. Madhyamik Ashramshala, Moholangi

4. The Project Officer,

Integrated Tribal Development Project

5. The Additional Commissioner,

Tribal Development Dept. ….Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 24870 OF 2024

IN

WRIT PETITION NO. 8740 OF 2024

Vijay Panditrao Patil

Through President,

Nashik Jillha Vidhayak Karya

Samiti Satana & Anr. ….Applicants

Page 1 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

AARTI

GAJANAN

PALKAR

Digitally

signed by

AARTI

GAJANAN

PALKAR

Date:

2026.04.07

17:31:51

+0530

WP.16352..2024.doc

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN

Machindranath Vishnu Ahire ….Petitioner

Versus

Lahanu Deochand Sonawane & Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. C. G Gavnekar, for Petitioner.

Ms. Pranita Pramod Hingmire, for Respondent.

Mr. S.D. Chipade, AGP for State.

CORAM :SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

DATE :APRIL 7, 2026

JUDGEMENT:

Context and Factual Background:

1. Writ Petition No.16352 of 2024 is filed by Petitioner No.1,

Nashik Jillha Vidhayak Karya Samiti, Satana (“Samiti”) and Petitioner

No.2, Madhyamik Ashram Shala, Moholangi (“School”) (collectively,

“Petitioners”), challenging an Order dated March 19, 2024 (“Impugned

Order”) passed by the Learned School Tribunal, Nashik, by which,

Respondent No.1, Lahanu Deochand Sonawane (“Sonawane”) has been

asked to be reinstated as the Head Master of the School, with all

attendant benefits accruing from such position, with effect from

December 31, 2011, which was the date on which Sonawane’s

Page 2 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

appointment as the Head Master had been reversed, making him an

Assistant Teacher in a different school.

2. The Samiti runs multiple schools. Sonawane and

Respondent No.4, Machindranath Vishnu Ahire (“Ahire”), are two

teachers in the employment of the Samiti.

3. Sonawane had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher in

one of the schools with effect from November 16, 1992, in a leave

vacancy between June 14, 1993, and May 31, 1994, and thereafter, on a

permanent vacancy from the academic year 1995-96.

4. Ahire had been transferred from a secondary school to a

primary school on June 1, 2001, which led to Ahire filing Writ Petition

No.565 of 2002 (“WP 565”) in this Court. Meanwhile, in 2004,

Sonawane came to be promoted as the Head Master in the School.

Disposing of WP 565, this Court directed the Samiti to consider Ahire’s

representation on seniority in accordance with law.

5. The Samiti contends that pursuant to such order disposing

of WP 565, Ahire’s representation was considered and that it led to

Sonawane being reverted from the post of Head Master to Assistant

Teacher, with Ahire instead being promoted to the post of Head Master

in the School. Therefore, after seven years of having been the Head

Page 3 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

Master of the School, Sonawane was reverted to being an Assistant

Teacher, by an order dated December 31, 2011 (“Reversion Order”)’.

6. Sonawane went on leave and preferred an appeal befo re the

Learned School Tribunal, challenging the Reversion Order. There was

an

ad interim ex parte stay on the Reversion Order until the Samiti filed

its reply. Eventually, over 12 years later, on March 19, 2024,

Sonawane’s appeal came to be allowed by way of the Impugned Order,

holding Sonawane to be entitled to all the benefits attached to the post

of Head Master from December 31, 2011 until the date of his retirement.

The Impugned Order held that Sonawane had been inflicted with a

major penalty without due process, and his removal from the position of

Head Master, without giving him a hearing was bad in law.

7. The key point urged by the Petitioners is that the Learned

School Tribunal completely erred in ignoring the fact that the Reversion

Order, which had been impugned, had been passed pursuant to the

directions of this Court passed while disposing of WP 565. It is

contended that the finding that Sonawane had been inflicted with a

major penalty without following due process is entirely incorrect,

inasmuch as it was not even the Samiti’s case that Sonawane had to be

subjected to any penal proceedings. According to the Samiti, all that it

Page 4 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

had done was to accept the representation of Ahire on the inter se

seniority and that led to passing of the Reversion Order.

Contentions of the Parties:

8. I have heard Mr. C. G. Gavnekar, Learned Advocate f or

Petitioner, Ms. Pranita Pramod Hingmire, Learned Advocate for the

Respondent and Mr. S. D. Chipade, Learned AGP for the State, and have

examined the material on record with their assistance.

9. Mr. Gavnekar, on behalf of the Petitioners would urge that

after the Reversion Order, Sonawane simply did not resume duty either

as an Assistant Teacher or as a Head Master, and simply went on leave,

absenting himself from attending the School, despite having been a

beneficiary of an

ad interim stay order. The upshot of the submission is

that a person who has chosen not to report to duty does not deserve to

be paid the benefits of the Head Master as directed in the Impugned

Order.

10. Mr. Gavnekar would submit that this Court can take notice

of the fact that Sonawane has not shown up to work, in exercise of its

extraordinary jurisdiction, and hold that a person who has not done any

work cannot be given benefits as directed in the Impugned Order.

Page 5 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

11. Ms. Hingmire, Learned Advocate for Sonawane would

contend that Sonawane had not been given any hearing when the

Reversion Order was passed. It is contended that the Reversion Order

simply alludes to the High Court Order disposing of WP 565, but there is

not a whisper of reasoning in the Reversion Order and, indeed, there is

not even a mention of Sonawane having been given notice or being

heard when

inter se seniority was considered, purportedly pursuant to

the High Court Order in WP 565. Therefore, her submission is that the

Reversion Order was indeed baseless, without due process, and ought

not to have been passed. Therefore, she would contend, the outcome in

the Impugned Order is not worthy of interference by the Writ Court.

12. It is also contended that Sonawane was correctly made the

Head Master in 2004 and had nothing to do with the transfer of Ahire

from a secondary school to a primary school, which led to WP 565 and

the order permitting Ahire to make a representation for the Samiti’s

consideration. Besides, Sonawane was not even a party to WP 565.

When Sonawane’s rights were being vitally affected, he ought to have

been heard.

13. Ms. Hingmire also contends that there are two factions

fighting over control of the Samiti and Sonawane has been caught in

that crossfire; towards this end, she would point to an Intervention

Page 6 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

Application filed by the Petitioners in the other captioned Writ Petition

filed by Ahire. As it transpires, Ahire has named certain office bearers

belonging to the other faction in his Writ Petition and the office bearers

who are pursuing the Samiti’s Petition seek to intervene.

Analysis and Findings:

14. Having heard the parties and having examined the m aterial

on record with their assistance, I am of the view that no case worthy of

interference in exercise of the extraordinary Writ jurisdiction of this

Court has been made out by the Petitioners.

15. It is an admitted position that the Reversion Order is not a

reasoned order. It is evident that when considering Ahire’s

representation, the Petitioners did not afford Sonawane, who had served

for seven years as the Head Master, any opportunity of being heard.

What we have on hand is a simple summary statement th at the

Reversion Order was necessitated by the consideration of the

representation by Ahire. Even if this were to be accurate, the reasons

for it are not discernible from the record. Whether Ahire could have

been made the Head Master in any other School, or whether Sonawane,

having served as the Head Master, could have been accommodated as

the Head Master in any of the other multiple Schools, and whether there

Page 7 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

were others who were senior to him in other schools are all facts at

large, which the Writ court cannot adjudicate in the first instance. What

is clear is that the Samiti demoted Sonawane and also moved him out of

the School to another school as an Assistant Teacher.

16. Mr. Gavnekar’s contention that Sonawane absented him self

after the Reversion Order and did not carry out any functions either as a

Head Master (despite benefiting from the stay order on the Reversion

Order) or as an Assistant Teacher (upon expiry of the stay order), has to

be rejected. Again, it is not for the Writ Court to conduct a trial in the

first instance as to what actually transpired – whether Sonawane

reported as Head Master upon obtaining a stay order or whether he was

prevented despite reporting to duty. If it were indeed true that

Sonawane absented himself despite obtaining a stay order or even after

the proceedings were underway, there is not a whisper of any

disciplinary action having been initiated by the Petitioners for such

alleged dereliction of duty. Whether or not he reported for work is a

separate and distinct cause of action, which entitled the Samiti to

initiate action in pursuit of such cause of action, but evidently, nothing

of that sort had been resorted to.

17. This is a facet of events after the Reversion Order was

passed, which cannot be germane for adjudicating the validity of the

Page 8 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

Reversion Order. If it is germane for not paying benefits, that is a

separate and new cause of action, the pursuit of which is not at all

discernible. If this Court were to take cognisance of such submissions

across the bar, it could also have the pernicious effect of reviving or

taking up a cause of action that is already barred by limitation.

18. Suffice it to say, Sonawane pursued the cause of action

arising out of the Reversion Order that was passed without hearing him

and cannot be accused of sleeping over his rights. In fact, Sonawane

filed an application for temporary injunction on January 6, 2012 and got

an ex parte injunction on the same day. For non-compliance with this

stay order, Sonawane also filed a contempt application on April 12, 2012

before the Learned School Tribunal for non-compliance by the Samiti

with the interim stay obtained on January 6, 2012. Therefore, indeed,

he acted upon the stay order that he had received. The Learned School

Petition kept the contempt application pending, and after the Impugned

Order was passed, disposed of it as having become infructuous since

Sonawane had already prevailed in the final hearing of the appeal.

19. It is evident that Sonawane had been made the Head

Master of the School on February 1, 2004, and until Ahir e’s

representation came to be allowed on December 12, 2011, Sonawane had

functioned as the Head Master of the School. Ahire had been appointed

Page 9 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

in one of the schools of the Samiti with effect from November 16, 1992,

for a temporary period until May 31, 1993. Sonawane had been

appointed with effect from June 14, 1993 for a period until May 31,

1996. It is also evident that when WP 565 (and indeed WP 566 of 2002

filed by another Teacher in the employment of the Samiti) came to be

disposed of by an Order dated June 30, 2009 (“DB Order”). The

Learned Division Bench of this Court essentially held that the relief

claimed by Ahire in relation to his pay had become infructuous,

inasmuch as the orders transferring Ahire and asking him to teach

primary classes instead of secondary school had been rescinded. As

regards the seniority, the DB Order granted liberty to Ahire to make a

representation to the Samiti and also directed that such representation

must be decided within three months of the representation being made.

While this order was passed on June 30, 2009, evidently no action

appears to have been taken until February 3, 2011. It appears from a

legal notice issued by lawyers of Ahire to the Samiti that a grievance was

made that despite a detailed representation having been made on

January 12, 2010, asking for the seniority to be accurately determined,

there had been no action on the part of the Samiti, despite repeated

requests and reminders. Disposal of the representation is claimed to be

the cause of the Reversion Order, but there is nothing in it to show any

reasoning.

Page 10 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

20. The Reversion Order merely states that pursuant to t he

decision of the High Court in WP 565, Sonawane was being transferred

with a reversion as an Assistant Teacher to Madhyamik Ashramshala,

Jad, Taluka Baglan, Nashik. Sonawane was directed to hand over

charge as soon as he received the Reversion Order and was directed to

join duties in the other School with effect from January 2, 2012. On the

same date, another order was passed, titled

“Transfer Order with

Promotion”,

to Ahire asking him to take charge as the Head Master in

the Moholangi School, displacing Sonawane, with no assessment of

issues and facts in the form of a reasoned order.

21. The legal validity of the Reversion Order is what was

questioned in the appeal before the Learned School Tribunal. The

Impugned Order deals with the merits of that appeal. It would not be

possible for this Court to import events and developments subsequent

to the Reversion Order to determine whether the legality of the

Impugned Order deserves to be upheld. It is the Samiti’s own choice

not to have acted against Sonawane despite its current contention that

Sonawane had abandoned his job. It is apparent that he even filed a

contempt application, which would only indicate that he presented

himself to resume work and was deprived of the opportunity to do so.

Page 11 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

22. The submissions made on behalf of the Samiti that Ahire

had been appointed on November 13, 1992, with an appointment order

taking effect on November 16, 1992, thereby rendering him senior to

Sonawane, who had been appointed on June 12, 1993, with effect from

June 14, 1993, are matters of fact that ought to be dealt with while

determining seniority among the two competing teachers for the post of

Head Master. I am unable to accept that it is the role of the Writ Court

to embark upon such an exercise and conduct a trial on such pleaded

issues when the Samiti has done nothing of the sort in all these years.

Despite repeated requests for some pointer in the record to indicate a

consideration of these facts, it is apparent that there is nothing on the

record explaining and justifying the basis on which the seniority had

been fixed and the manner in which the representation made by Ahire

was found worthy of acceptance by the Samiti.

23. It was contended before the Learned School Tribunal by the

Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development Department, Nashik,

that Ahire had been appointed on a clear and vacant post with effect

from November 16, 1992, and had the qualification of B.A. and B.Ed.

and being a Trained Graduate Teacher, he was appointed to a

permanent post unlike Sonawane, who had been appointed in 1993 on a

temporary leave of vacancy, with his appointment on a clear vacancy

Page 12 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

coming about only in 1995-1996. It was contended that Ahire’s

appointment was merely a correction of the seniority list. Ahire was

indeed a party to the proceedings before the Learned School Tribunal,

and he too joined issue in the appeal.

24. Having heard the parties, the Learned School Tribunal went

on to hold that the issue of seniority was wholly irrelevant while

considering the appeal. The promotion of Sonawane as the Head Master

in 2004 had remained uncontested all the way until the Reversion

Order, and according to the Learned School Tribunal, the issue of

seniority ought not to be a factor for consideration in the appeal. The

issue for consideration was whether Sonawane had been demoted

without conducting a proper enquiry. Therefore, it was held that the

Reversion Order was bad in law. It was indeed held that the reduction

in rank of Sonawane deserved to be set aside.

25. The Impugned Order passed by the Learned School

Tribunal has treated the Reversion Order as an order imposing a major

penalty without following due process for imposition of penalty.

However, the absence of any initiation of any punitive proceedings on

the premise that the Reversion Order was merely a correction of a

seven-year old mistake cannot be adjudicated for the first time in this

Court. Without a reasoned order justifying the Reversion Order, the

Page 13 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

unexplained reversion of a Head Master of seven years to an Assistant

Teacher (except for attributing it to WP 565) and that too to another

school, can indeed be regarded as punitive. Without anything to show

how Ahire’s representation was dealt with, the Learned School

Tribunal’s view that the action taken in respect of Sonawane was

effectively a punitive measure cannot be faulted.

26. The Impugned Order records that Sonawane possessed the

qualifications of M.A. and B.Ed. and had been a Trained Graduate

Teacher who was working as an Assistant Teacher in the School right

since 1992 all the way until January 2004. It was found that on the

basis of his blemishless service record, Sonawane had been promoted to

the post of the Head Master on February 1, 2004. Since then, he had

been acting as the Head Master without any challenge or dispute in any

Court or forum about his position. Even if one assumes that the transfer

of Sonawane to an Assistant Teacher with effect from January 2012 was

pursuant to the representation of Ahire being accepted, in the absence

of anything to show Sonawane was heard and the issues were dealt with,

the complete and abject breach of natural justice is writ large on the face

of the record. Sonawane was not even a party to WP 565 or WP 566.

Therefore, the Reversion Order was passed entirely behind his back.

Page 14 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

27. It is seen from the record that both Sonawane and Ah ire

belong to the Scheduled Caste category. That Sonawane’s appointment

as the Head Master with a promotion on February 1, 2004, was itself

illegal is a realisation that is said to have dawned on the Samiti only at

the end of 2011. Without a whisper of due process on the record to

indicate so, it is not for the Writ Court to conduct a trial as to who is

senior.

28. The appeal in question being directed against the Reversion

Order, the Learned School Tribunal held that Rule 31 o f the

Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1981 (“MEPS Rules”) which deals with the classification of

penalties, would point to a demotion and a reduction in rank falling

within the ambit of

“major penalties”. Rule 33 of the MEPS Rules,

which prescribes a procedure for inflicting major penalties, had not at

all been followed. Indeed, the Learned School Tribunal was told that

Sonawane had already retired from service on March 31, 2021. This was

adjusted for by the Learned School Tribunal directing that while the

appeal deserved to be allowed with Sonawane being reverted to the rank

of Head Master, Sonawane would be entitled to all the benefits attached

to the post of the Head Master from December 31, 2011 (the date of the

Reversion Order) until March 31, 2021 (the date of retirement). The

Page 15 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

Samiti was, therefore, directed to pay the entire benefits to Sonawane,

which would be attached to the post of the Head Master.

29. In my opinion, even while the Samiti is purporting to have

been deferential to the DB Order by examining the validity of Ahire’s

representation, at the least, the Samiti ought to have given Sonawane

notice of such representation and heard him in order to enable him to

explain his say. Admittedly, there are changed circumstances in the

management of the Samiti, and it appears that the faction that preferred

Ahire backed him, while the faction that preferred Sonawane backed

him.

30. It is equally startling that the Samiti did nothing if it truly

believed that Sonawane had abandoned his job, as is now being

contended. Indeed, there is no discussion in the DB Order on the merits

of seniority, and all that the DB Order has said is that the Samiti must

decide the representation made by Ahire in accordance with law. The

consideration in accordance with law not being perceivable from the

record, the finding that the measure was punitive does not lend itself to

interference in exercise of the discretionary Writ jurisdiction of this

Court.

Page 16 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

31. All that the DB Order had stated was to examine the pay

scales on the basis of seniority and the treatment of Ahire as a Trained

Graduate. The complex construct of Schedule ‘F’ to the Maharashtra

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act,

1977 (“MEPS Act”) and its application to the respective contenders finds

no mention whatsoever in any articulation in the record.

32. While it may be arguable that the Learned School Tribunal

may not be correct in its observation that the issue has no nexus

whatsoever with seniority, it is equally arguable that the nexus to

seniority ought to have been articulated by the Samiti and ought to be

writ large on the record . It suited the Samiti that after 2011, the

appellate proceedings meandered over twelve years and eventually led

to the passing of the Impugned Order. During this period, neither did

the Samiti have to deal with a competing contender, nor did it have to

pay any salary or wages to Sonawane. In these circumstances, it is not

equitable to exercise discretion of the Writ Court to interfere with the

Impugned Order – an intervention on the ground of equity cannot

emphasise and inflict inequity either.

33. In these circumstances, the Samiti’s proposition that the

Learned School Tribunal applied inapplicable provisions by treating the

demotion as a penalty while the demotion was merely correction of a

Page 17 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

seniority error made in 2004, in my opinion, the peculiar factual matrix

of the case does not lend itself to such a simplistic summarisation as

sought to be made.

34. In these circumstances, I am disinclined to exercise the

Writ jurisdiction to interfere with the Impugned Order. I also

considered whether it would be appropriate to remand the matter either

to the Learned School Tribunal or back to the Samiti, asking for a

decision to be made with reasons on the

inter se seniority between

Sonawane and Ahire. However, I am convinced that such an approach

would be absurd and unwarranted at this distance of time – one and

half decades since Sonawane’s displacement after serving as Head

Master for seven years, it is not appropriate for a writ to be issued to

permit this lacuna to be dealt with all over again. If the Samiti were

indeed right, there ought to have been something to show how it had

dealt with Ahire’s representation and how Sonawane had effectively had

an opportunity to present his say. The internal politics of the Samiti is

writ large, rendering such an approach meaningless.

35. Therefore, without any interference with the Impugned

Order, the Writ Petition is hereby

finally disposed of.

Page 18 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar

WP.16352..2024.doc

36. All actions required to be taken pursuant to this order shall

be taken upon receipt of a downloaded copy as available on this Court’s

website.

[SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.]

Page 19 of 19

APRIL 7, 2026

Aarti Palkar